Wonder what you would find if you frisked US Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Obamacare?

Answer: Steven Crowder breaks it down.

Haha.

Although Steven Crowder uses humor to address the serious issues facing our country, the Obamacare waiver problem is bigger than you might think. Explain this to me: Why are the same people (liberals and organized labor unions) that fought for Obamacare now seeking to be exempt from it?

The answer, of course, is that if everybody could escape from government-designed health insurance, then everybody would. And besides, the HHS Web site explains, “Annual limits waivers are temporary. In 2014 annual dollar limits will be prohibited and mini-med plans will no longer be necessary.” Viola. Since they’re prohibited, nobody will want them anymore.

To date, the Obama administration has issued more than a thousand health care waivers to organizations desiring a year-long exemption from the law’s coverage requirement.

“Democrats continue to tout the benefits of the health care reform, yet some of their biggest political contributors such as labor unions are filing for waivers,” said Ensign. “The more than one thousand waivers that have already been granted should send a strong signal of how economically damaging this law is, and now more than ever we need to work toward full repeal.”

Luckily for you, conservative groups have put together a website where you can fill out a form to ask the Department of Health and Human Services for your own Obamacare wavier. Click here to visit WheresMYWaiver.com.

After years of being harassed by the purple people beaters, one company has finally said ENOUGH.

In a press release issued Thursday, Sodexo USA announced that the company has filed a civil lawsuit against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act., accusing the union of engaging in an “illegal campaign of extortion.” The lawsuit representing Sodexo is Hunton & Williams – the same firm SEIU and its allies have accused of launching a “dirty tricks” campaign against them in retaliation for their anti-Chamber of Commerce campaigns.

One of the largest food services and facilities management companies in the world, Sodexo is the provider of choice for most schools, universities, companies, hotels, prisons and other facilities that outsource their cafeteria and food catering operations, and for those that outsource industrial cleaning services. SEIU has been incessantly battering Sodexo since 2007, in its desire to unionize some of its nearly 400,000 employees, many of them hotel and food service workers. Exacerbating the tensions was a longstanding turf war between SEIU and UNITE HERE over hotel and casino workers, which often spilled over into SEIU’s antics prior to the settlement the warring unions reached this past summer.

Sodexo USA has filed the lawsuit in an attempt to halt the over-the-top harassment from SEIU, alleging that many of the acts are very serious and outside of the normal realm of union tactics, including acts of ” SEIU blackmail, vandalism, trespass, harassment, and lobbying law violations designed to steer business away from Sodexo USA and harm the company.” [emphasis added]

Aside from some of its usual corporate smear campaign tactics, certain organizers in the SEIU subscribed to some especially nasty, and frankly repulsive, tactics:

The complaint alleges that the SEIU, in face to face meetings, threatened Sodexo USA’s executives that it would harm Sodexo USA’s business unless they gave in to the union, and then carried out its threats through egregious behavior, including:

throwing plastic roaches onto food being served by Sodexo USA at a high profile event;

The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats’ hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.

[…]

Previously, most labor-sponsored campaign ads had to be funded by volunteer donations. Now, however, AFSCME can pay for ads using annual dues from members, which amount to about $390 per person. AFSCME said it will tap membership dues to pay for $17 million of ads backing Democrats this election.

Labor unions were created to be a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, do not generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. Unfortunately, when government unions strike, they strike against the taxpayers who fund their salaries, pensions, benefits, etc.

Props to the Republican National Committee for releasing this political advertisement. It’s refreshing to see them take a firm stand on this issue.

During a pro-union rally at Colorado’s State Capitol yesterday, some alleged SEIU union supporters got into a shouting match with a black Tea Partier. But the conversation wasn’t just a loud, heated exchange. It got very personal when two union supporters ganged up on the conservative, one of them calling him “uneducated” and another asking him if he has any children “that he claims”.

According to RedWhiteBlueNews.com, the woman in red was later asked what she meant by her comments about the man’s children. “She said the black conservative was such a ‘free spirit’ that she assumed he would possibly not own up to the responsibility of being a father,” the site says.

Notice how the SEIU protester calls the Black conservative “uneducated” while also claiming he is “emmoral”… The only uneducated person in the video clip above is the SEIU protester. It’s pronounced “immoral” by the way.

Typical and classless.

*UPDATE* – February 23, 2011 – 1:23 PM.

The same group of protesters, who called the Black conservative “educated”, chanted “U-S-A” while waving a Mexican flag:

While the national recession killed private-sector jobs, the government jobs have been “relatively sheltered,” says one researcher.

Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, says the private sector has lost 6 percent of its January 2008 workforce, or 7.2 million jobs, as of November 2010.

Yet, federal jobs increased 3.5 percent by 98,000 jobs during that same time span. And de Rugy says those increases don’t include all the census workers that were hired temporarily. At its peak, the government had hired about 600,000 census workers.

State government jobs nationwide have seen a 1 percent increase with 42,000 more jobs from January 2008 to November 2010.

The only municipal jobs loser was “local government,” which lost 1.7 percent of its jobs, or 258,000 jobs, from January 2008 to November 2010.

Personally, we should require all public-sector employees, on average, to have wages and benefits that are within 3 percent of those comparable skills in the private-sector. Also, as I have pointed out before, the people over at The Heritage Foundation have a few other solutions that would address this issue:

Abolish the general schedule and implement performance-based pay.

Hire more private contractors.

Reduce federal benefits.

End dismissal restrictions.

Of course these solutions are not popular with the powerful and greedy organized labor unions. In the end, it will be a fight if we are going to be serious about tackling this problem.

The Grand Rapids Education Association, a local affiliate of Michigan’s largest teachers’ union, is attempting to pick off one-by-one 90-some members that have refused to pay their dues.

About 18 months ago, the school board voted to no longer deduct dues from employees’ paychecks, which meant union members had to physically write a check to the union. Many saw it as their opportunity to protest the obnoxious behavior of union leaders during a previous contract negotiation period. The union president, Paul Helder, was particularly pompous during negotiations, claiming the union was fighting a “war on terrorism.” He even established “War Time Committees” to organize the fight against the school board and administrators.

The judge, citing the fact that Michigan is not a right-to-work state, ruled she has to fork over the money, regardless of whether or not the union is representing her interests.

Let that marinate for a bit – because of current Michigan law, the union has the right to take a school employee to court and extract money out of her. Isn’t that grand?

If there is ever an opportunity to make Michigan a right-to-work state, this is it.

As a Michigander, this news story hits home for me. For decades, Michigan has suffered from greedy and corrupt organized labor unions, including the Michigan Education Association (MEA). Unfortunately, as mentioned in the article above, Michigan is not a Right-to-Work state and union members can be forced to surrender their hard earned money to corrupt organized labor unions that do not represent their best interests.

I am a strong proponent of Right-to-Work and hope that with our new Republican governor and state legislature we can get something done that will loosen the death grip that organized labor unions have on private and public sector workers.

As for Marjorie Hayward’s case, hopefully this ruling will open the door for the teachers to file a class-action lawsuit against the union. After all, it’s quite clear that the union did not represent their best interests.